Skip to content

Amendments to come for more flexibility to correct contribution errors in defined contribution plans

Level Chan and Rachel Abi Daoud

On February 4, 2022 the federal government released a set of draft legislative proposals (“Draft Legislation”) amending the Income Tax Act (“Act“) and Income Tax Regulations (“Regulations“). The draft amendments would implement certain personal income tax measures previously announced in the 2021 Federal Budget, which included more flexibility for defined contribution pension plan (“DCPP”) administrators to correct for both under-contributions and over-contributions. With completion of the consultation period on March 7, 2022, we hope to see these measures implemented this year.

The Act does not currently address issues arising out of historical over-contributions and under-contributions, nor does it propose any remedies. If an under-contribution is discovered in a subsequent year, the Act does not allow plan administrators to accept contributions to correct the error. The only option is to amend the plan to allow for catch-up contributions or make payments outside of the plan. In addition, while the rules allow some over-contribution errors to be corrected by refunding the excess to the contributor, the procedural requirements are onerous and often impractical.

The Draft Legislation proposes the following changes to the Act to address these issues.

Correcting under-contribution errors in DCPPs

The amendments permit certain errors to be corrected by allowing plan administrators to make additional contributions (i.e. – “permitted corrective contributions”) to a member’s money purchase account, in order to compensate the member for an under-contribution error in any of the preceding five years of the additional contribution, subject to a dollar limit.

The Draft Legislation would accomplish this through a new subsection 147.1(2) to the Act, which permits a correction by an individual or an employer under a money purchase provision of an individual’s registered pension plan if:

  1. it is a permitted corrective contribution; and
  2. the money purchase provision was a designated money purchase provision in each of the five immediately preceding years.

Permitted corrective contribution

In a calendar year, this is a contribution that would have been made to a money purchase provision of a registered pension plan in any of the five immediately preceding years in accordance with the plan terms, but for a failure to enroll the individual in the plan or a failure to contribute as required by the terms of the plan.

Designated money purchase provision

A money purchase provision is considered a “designated money purchase provision” in a calendar year if it meets one of the following conditions:

  1. the pension plan has ten or more members throughout the year; or
  2. not more than 50% of the contributions made to the provision in the year are with respect to “connected persons” and employees whose remuneration for the year exceeds 2.5 times the year’s maximum pensionable earnings (under the Canada Pension Plan).

Correcting over-contribution errors in DCPPs

The draft amendments would also enable plan administrators to correct for pension over-contribution errors through an employer or member refund. Similar to under-contributions, the relief would be available only to over-contributions made in the five years preceding the year of the refund. Refunds of over-contributions would restore an employee’s contribution room for the taxation year in which the refund is made.

Simplifying reporting requirements

Under the Act in its current form, a return of an over-contribution does not automatically restore the affected member’s Registered Retirement Savings Plan (“RRSP”) contribution room. Retroactive amendments to a member’s historical T4 slip(s) are required in order to do this, which is a cumbersome process.

In addition to permitting corrections for over-contribution errors, the proposed amendments would also implement an easier process for reporting pension adjustment corrections related to over-contributions and under-contributions. Rather than filing amended T4 slips, a plan administrator would simply have to file an information return in prescribed form with the Canada Revenue Agency, with respect to each affected plan member.

Adding a reasonable rate of interest to a return of contributions

A registered pension plan becomes a revocable plan when it is not administered in accordance with the terms of the plan as registered, for example where an over-contribution has been made.

Under the current Regulations, the distribution rules permit the return of all or a portion of contributions made when the payment is done to avoid the revocation of the registration of the plan. The draft amendments, if enacted, will allow plan administrators to add a reasonable rate of interest to a return of contributions, in order to avoid the revocation of plan registration. A “reasonable rate” is not defined and more guidance may be provided at a later date.

General

The Department of Finance is receiving comments on the Draft Legislation up to March 7, 2022. Comments may be sent to Consultation-Legislation@fin.gc.ca.

If successfully implemented, the amendments will come into force retroactively – as of January 1, 2021. While the Draft Legislation will make changes to the Act and the Regulations, correction of under- and over-contributions for registered pension plans will still need to comply with applicable pension benefits standards legislation.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Pensions and Benefits group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top